Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

kingwi11 t1_j3suhgw wrote

Percent per capita might be more reflective. As of right now this just reads as a population map

60

velvet33N t1_j3sukkj wrote

Do the numbers represent more or fewer?

11

Hot-Specialist-6824 t1_j3svjjj wrote

Percent change might be a better indicator than raw numbers. 300,000 means a lot in New Hampshire it means squat in Massachusetts.

19

planet_irata t1_j3sw6ly wrote

Replying to velvet33N (#1,328,098)

Ok, I looked at OPs source data. It's number of additional people insured, which makes the color choices a bit odd. Red is usually "bad" in these types of charts, but in this case it's actually good.

10

bluedaddy1 t1_j3sx0l5 wrote

Would be better displayed as a percentage of the state total or percentage of the total uninsured by state.

The raw number doesn’t tell us what the relative significance of the scale is without the context

3

french-fry-fingers t1_j3sx53x wrote

Like others say, better to normalize the population data. Give as a % per state.

Also agreeing with whomever said the color choice is odd. Red usually designates less, or something not good. Green more, or something good. Use a neutral color like blue or purple. Or even green, since generally more insured is considered good.

7

throwRApechump t1_j3xl3ai wrote

Also consider that a lot of these states had population growth in this time period (probably all of them except West Virginia)... for instance, California added about 1.5 Million people.

2

Fit-Plant-306 t1_j41v5p0 wrote

I’ve always wondered what percentage of the people that acquired health insurance under the ACA were 18-26 year old offspring of parents that already were insured.

1